New Player Retention Suggestions

1. New players who visit chesscom variants may experience two barriers that will prevent them from becoming at least semi-regular players. First off, they may become 1.overwhelmed by the number of variants. Secondly, they are likely to pick 2.variants or time controls they are statistically unlikely to prefer. While there are many other (most outside of our control) things that hurt player retention, these are two that can be controlled.

2. It is in our best interest to fix these issues. I have heard many people make the argument that new players should choose what they prefer for themselves. While this is perfectly fine for experienced players, exposing new players to non-beginner friendly variants or time controls hurts both variants and new players. New players A. Don't know what they prefer and B. Are likely to play the first variant that pops up. It is important that the "first variant that pops up" is statistically likely to be what they prefer.

There is a simple way to solve this issue. With the exception of the best ten or so variants and their main time control, all other variants should be locked to players until they have played a couple games. 

This solves both problems. New players are unlikely to be overwhelmed by the greatly reduced variant options while still being exposed to our best games. In addition, they it will be impossible for them to choose a bad (for them) variant.

----

When players first get on variants, it would be preferable for them to play someone their own strength. Obviously, the average person is more likely to enjoy playing someone their own strength. I think it should be considered, for our biggest variants (4pc; fog of war) to have an automatic 200+ rating ceiling for new players. 

---

Finally, I think, in addition to the rules, there should be an easily accessible strategy guide. This could be easily volunteer driven. I, and I'm sure many other people, would be happy to do this. This would help with the lack of easily accessible information (especially compared to this proposal) for 4pc and other games.

Thank you for reading!

Caleb

looks good but im not the one that can accept it

I think there should definitely at least be strategy guides.

There could also be advanced ones as well

It is possible my fears are unfounded in regards to my first point. I'll give you these scenarios

A new player joins a hyperbullet game

A new player joins a game with fairy pieces or other beginner-non friendly game.

Nothing stops the first one.

What prevents someone from seeing the other one if they go to the main lobby?

And in both of those cases, we are much more likely to not retain that player. I don't think the current things we have now prevent that.

They are unpopular, yes, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't look to improve things.

But to your point, hopefully I am wrong, and this isn't a major problem. But in 4pc, at least, there are, I believe, many players who join a bullet game or a game with fairy pieces and I would suspect we statistically loose them.

---

My most important points

So, I will just say this. I feel like the more variants funnels people into certain variants the better variants will be. I bet that making people interested in one game is better than setting up a system where people shuffle around to different ones. And I feel like this system is being built to the latter instead of the former.

I think if we looked at the data on new players and cross-referenced things such as "type of variant" "strength of opponent" and "2 player rating strength" to identify trends that would help us to present a better product and perhaps even make us able to predict what makes a person stay. For a simpler example, looking at what variants someone starts and whether they stay with it may tell us which ones we should lead with. Is doing something like that with variants/4pc/even live variants possible. I can clarify on this idea.

---

As per strategy guides, perhaps put a notice in variants/4pc forums asking for applicants? Or whatever you think best   I'm thinking (more specifically) a little article you could pop up in the rules. 

Anyway, thanks for responding! 

Caleb

How high of a rating should you have to have to write a strategy guide?

I don't know where this idea will go, nor how people would/will be chosen.

A person needs to be able to explain the fundamental concepts (for long term growth and understanding) and actionable ideas (short term) of their variant.

Preferably the stronger the better and the better writer the better, but not necessarily. 

I think visibility is the main issue, so maybe shrink the size of the other play buttons slightly, and add a "play variants button" on the main page

Okay

To reflect changes to Chess's structure (as well as promoting Variants), Variants should be above 4PC, and Live should be removed or put at the bottom.

makes no difference ig

I agree with that